They should make the Punisher a bad guy again.

Avatar image for manwithoutshame
#1 Posted by manwithoutshame (659 posts) - - Show Bio

Think about it, if he can't headline his own book, why not return a little more back to Frank Miller's take on the Punisher in the Child's Play arc.

I feel they try to justify his actions too much, and he'd have more of an impact as a straight up baddie, which he basically already is.

It sure would beat being the butt of Deadpool's jokes in Thunderbolts.

Avatar image for bionder
#2 Posted by bionder (330 posts) - - Show Bio

He is a bad guy? Enough with messed up "changes" with the character, he is an antihero which is way different than bad guy.

Does it make him a bad guy to kill someone that sells drugs to children? If that's your opinion it does make Daredevil a villain to try to stop him too.

They got differences on their approach to crime, Daredevil wants criminals to have a fair trial and put them in jail.

The Punisher kills them, end of story. They both stop crime but the Punisher stops them permanently. Does it make him right? Probably no, but he fights crime in his own way.

Avatar image for lsrotj
#3 Posted by LSROTJ (126 posts) - - Show Bio

Be a bad guy again? In his first appearance the Punisher went after Spider-Man based on false information, when he found out that the Jackal had lied to him, Frank was pissed... sigh... there's always some dumbass who thinks there so clever because they pointed out something that we all missed. But as always, they don't go into details, they don't state anything to backup their claim (could you possibly be more vague?), and even if they did... they would just be "cherry picking" out certain events for their so-called reason. And in the end, what's the reason behind this... just so Deadpool can tell some jokes... wow... I wonder how long it took this person to have such a brainwave????

So a functional character either has to be a goody-two-shoe or a bad guy... no shades of gray, in-between or dark complex characters huh... because you fail to understand this character.

Avatar image for manwithoutshame
#4 Edited by manwithoutshame (659 posts) - - Show Bio

What I meant wasn't that he should no longer have a code of honor, but that the Punisher should return to being an antagonist in various Marvel books rather than what he's doing now. Similar to his first 25 or so appearances.

It's not such a leap compared to previous Punisher arcs featuring Frank Castle becoming a black man and teaming up with Luke Cage, or being demon-possessed or turning him into a Frankenstein monster. Granted, none of those were good things that happened, but I think now and again a new take is needed.

And if you've read Daredevil 183-184, you'd know he was not portrayed in a favorable light, but it was a great freaking story.

Avatar image for badassporkchop
#5 Posted by Badassporkchop (389 posts) - - Show Bio

Bump

Avatar image for theacidskull
#6 Edited by theacidskull (22027 posts) - - Show Bio

Frank was never a good guy to begin with, he was always a "bad guy". If you're asking that the writers should make him a villain, then that goes against everything Punisher stands for. Punisher was never without a code of honour, he never killed the innocent, only criminal vermin who deserved death. He knows he can't change jack shit, he just wants to punish thous who cause misery. He's never been portrayed to be nice, or caring, or anything less than what he truly is, which is a one man army.

He could appear in a daredevil or spider-man book as a way to have superheroes question and/or strengthen their morality, kind of what happened when Frank tied daredevil up with a and put an empty gun in his hand, but for him to be a constant antagonist just doesn't workout IMO. Frank's an anti-hero, through and through.

Avatar image for cgoodness
#7 Posted by Cream_God (15519 posts) - - Show Bio

My dyslexia made that "they should make punisher gay again"

Avatar image for trickyman86
#8 Posted by Trickyman86 (1288 posts) - - Show Bio

@manwithoutshame: so dumb.... how is he already a bad guy? He does more lasting good than any other superhero. He prevents people's families from being innocently slaughtered, raped, tortured, etc

Avatar image for theacidskull
#9 Posted by theacidskull (22027 posts) - - Show Bio

@manwithoutshame: so dumb.... how is he already a bad guy? He does more lasting good than any other superhero. He prevents people's families from being innocently slaughtered, raped, tortured, etc

He's definitely a bad guy, regardless if his methods are technically effective. He's not a "villain" though.

Avatar image for thorson
#10 Posted by THORSON (4973 posts) - - Show Bio

haha!

Avatar image for omegahans
#11 Edited by OmegaHans (267 posts) - - Show Bio

He isn't a good guy (Frank has said this himself and if you're going to take it from anyone take it from the horse's mouth) and he's not a villain, well not a "villain's villain" in the way a typical villain would be portrayed, but a villain to individual perceptions depending on how YOU feel about him. And while I don't exactly think of him as a villain, I can see why some would. Usually in Spider-Man stories for instance, he's on the criminal side of the synopsis despite Frank's intentions, because Spidey isn't going to tolerate any of the lengths Frank will go to, feeling it goes too far.

Punisher is Punisher. He's one of those on the fringe, a select zone of characters in comics that you cannot simply nail down in a traditional comic book "good guy/bad guy" sense. Also, he's a driven psychopath and the only person who truly understands the reasons why he does what he does is himself. Hardly those he interacts with. Watch the Death Wish movies and turn that up times x50 when you give Frank a basic analysis, and that's a start to kind of get a picture...

There are occasional times in comic events when The Punisher and his methods are necessary. It is not the first option, not even the options that follow, but the option when there's not many left, that's where he comes in. And you don't want a guy like him coming in the picture if you really don't have to see anyone get brutally and blatantly slaughtered; it doesn't take much for him to kill people. Yet the man doesn't just kill, he literally plans the murder and the torture and the calculated use of violence and whatnot... before he attempts it. Indicating an abnormal psychological gratification similarly seen in serial killers, but what is ironic is such historically are the some of very type of people he likes to hunt down in his daily vigilantism.

Avatar image for dernman
#12 Edited by Dernman (26092 posts) - - Show Bio

There is nothing wrong with the character the way he is and he handles headlining his own book just fine. It's ok for some characters not to have continuous ongoing books. Sometimes it's better to split them up in smaller series and just focus when you have a story for them. In fact I think it would be a good idea for that to happen more often with characters. With Punisher this actually suits the character better IMO.

Avatar image for theacidskull
#13 Posted by theacidskull (22027 posts) - - Show Bio

@dernman said:

There is nothing wrong with the character the way he is and he handles headlining his own book just fine. It's ok for some characters not to have continuous ongoing books. Sometimes it's better to split them up in smaller series and just focus when you have a story for them. In fact I think it would be a good idea for that to happen more often with characters. With Punisher this actually suits the character better IMO.

Well, not exactly. I wouldn't have mind if marvel had allowed Rucka to go on with his series, I mean, we've seen Garth reach 60 issues before, and that's only in the Max universe. I don't think Punisher is one of the characters that needs small titles with breaks.

Avatar image for dernman
#14 Edited by Dernman (26092 posts) - - Show Bio

@theacidskull said:
@dernman said:

There is nothing wrong with the character the way he is and he handles headlining his own book just fine. It's ok for some characters not to have continuous ongoing books. Sometimes it's better to split them up in smaller series and just focus when you have a story for them. In fact I think it would be a good idea for that to happen more often with characters. With Punisher this actually suits the character better IMO.

Well, not exactly. I wouldn't have mind if marvel had allowed Rucka to go on with his series, I mean, we've seen Garth reach 60 issues before, and that's only in the Max universe. I don't think Punisher is one of the characters that needs small titles with breaks.

I didn't say any character need anything. If you have the story and the sales then by all means go forward. I'm just saying there isn't anything wrong with shorter cycles and certain characters can work better that way as apposed to the Super, Bat, Spider books that can go years and years.

Edit: I believe that too many people think that because books don't go as long as those book they're failures. I just don't agree with that.

Avatar image for theacidskull
#15 Posted by theacidskull (22027 posts) - - Show Bio

@dernman said:
@theacidskull said:
@dernman said:

There is nothing wrong with the character the way he is and he handles headlining his own book just fine. It's ok for some characters not to have continuous ongoing books. Sometimes it's better to split them up in smaller series and just focus when you have a story for them. In fact I think it would be a good idea for that to happen more often with characters. With Punisher this actually suits the character better IMO.

Well, not exactly. I wouldn't have mind if marvel had allowed Rucka to go on with his series, I mean, we've seen Garth reach 60 issues before, and that's only in the Max universe. I don't think Punisher is one of the characters that needs small titles with breaks.

I didn't say any character need anything. If you have the story and the sales then by all means go forward. I'm just saying there isn't anything wrong with shorter cycles and certain characters can work better that way as apposed to the Super, Bat, Spider books that can go years and years.

Edit: I believe that too many people think that because books don't go as long as those book they're failures. I just don't agree with that.

I've never heard anyone say that before. Could you elaborate a bit?

Avatar image for dernman
#16 Posted by Dernman (26092 posts) - - Show Bio

@dernman said:
@theacidskull said:
@dernman said:

There is nothing wrong with the character the way he is and he handles headlining his own book just fine. It's ok for some characters not to have continuous ongoing books. Sometimes it's better to split them up in smaller series and just focus when you have a story for them. In fact I think it would be a good idea for that to happen more often with characters. With Punisher this actually suits the character better IMO.

Well, not exactly. I wouldn't have mind if marvel had allowed Rucka to go on with his series, I mean, we've seen Garth reach 60 issues before, and that's only in the Max universe. I don't think Punisher is one of the characters that needs small titles with breaks.

I didn't say any character need anything. If you have the story and the sales then by all means go forward. I'm just saying there isn't anything wrong with shorter cycles and certain characters can work better that way as apposed to the Super, Bat, Spider books that can go years and years.

Edit: I believe that too many people think that because books don't go as long as those book they're failures. I just don't agree with that.

I've never heard anyone say that before. Could you elaborate a bit?

Not sure. Words seems to be failing me at the moment.

I'll try. I've seen over a long period and involving different talks that people seem to think that the successes are books like Bat, Super, and Spidy. That those like Punisher, Moon Knight, and many others are failures because they don't or can't maintain constantly hold in their ongoing.

No that didn't work. I just repeated myself. hmmm

I've seen many act like those who're not long term are not successes. That because companies use different standards and model for certain books that they're failures.

Take the op for example. ( wow just noticed it was posted 2 years ago) "think about it, if he can't headline his own book,"

How exactly has he not held his own book? Sure his runs are shorter and might not do so well if they went longer but so what? I consider them successful title holders. They just use a different business model and approach. Instead of having one looong consistent runs they're broken up into many smaller runs of various sizes.

Sorry not explaining myself right.

Avatar image for theacidskull
#17 Posted by theacidskull (22027 posts) - - Show Bio

@dernman said:
@theacidskull said:
@dernman said:
@theacidskull said:
@dernman said:

There is nothing wrong with the character the way he is and he handles headlining his own book just fine. It's ok for some characters not to have continuous ongoing books. Sometimes it's better to split them up in smaller series and just focus when you have a story for them. In fact I think it would be a good idea for that to happen more often with characters. With Punisher this actually suits the character better IMO.

Well, not exactly. I wouldn't have mind if marvel had allowed Rucka to go on with his series, I mean, we've seen Garth reach 60 issues before, and that's only in the Max universe. I don't think Punisher is one of the characters that needs small titles with breaks.

I didn't say any character need anything. If you have the story and the sales then by all means go forward. I'm just saying there isn't anything wrong with shorter cycles and certain characters can work better that way as apposed to the Super, Bat, Spider books that can go years and years.

Edit: I believe that too many people think that because books don't go as long as those book they're failures. I just don't agree with that.

I've never heard anyone say that before. Could you elaborate a bit?

Not sure. Words seems to be failing me at the moment.

I'll try. I've seen over a long period and involving different talks that people seem to think that the successes are books like Bat, Super, and Spidy. That those like Punisher, Moon Knight, and many others are failures because they don't or can't maintain constantly hold in their ongoing.

No that didn't work. I just repeated myself. hmmm

I've seen many act like those who're not long term are not successes. That because companies use different standards and model for certain books that they're failures.

Take the op for example. ( wow just noticed it was posted 2 years ago) "think about it, if he can't headline his own book,"

How exactly has he not held his own book? Sure his runs are shorter and might not do so well if they went longer but so what? I consider them successful title holders. They just use a different business model and approach. Instead of having one looong consistent runs they're broken up into many smaller runs of various sizes.

Sorry not explaining myself right.

I kind of understand what you are saying, but I'm gonna have to disagree with you. Unless the title is a predetermined mini series before release, it's meant to go as long as it can, at least in more cases than not. It makes no sense for Marvel to cancel a title if it's actually doing well and making some serious money. The way these relaunches work is that these giant industries launch individual projects and they wait to see whether it picks up or not. Sometimes it does, and a title like the HULK (the one written by Jeph loeb) may last over 50 series, others, sadly, don't meet the expected results, so they are either relaunched or flat about cancelled.

I'm not saying that this is 100% how it is all the time, there are obviously tons of factors that could be brought up, but most likely these titles are cancelled because they are just not successful. That's not to say that a character can't benefit from small exposure or anything like that either.

Avatar image for daredevil21134
#18 Posted by daredevil21134 (15939 posts) - - Show Bio

Frank is good as is.Guys like Daredevil deep down inside know he's a necessary evil.He's a villain to villains.LOL!!!

Avatar image for immolation
#20 Edited by Immolation (1955 posts) - - Show Bio

Frank never worked as a bad guy. He also never had a problem headlining his own book when written right. But unfortunately it seems like ever time they have gotten a good writer for the character since Garth Ennis has left he only signs up for a mini series or a short run.

This edit will also create new pages on Comic Vine for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Comic Vine users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.